The Duty of Beneficence

1
The Duty of Beneficence
2
Do unto others as you would have them do unto
you.
Everyday Ethics What people say
3
Strangers far away
Me
Everyday Ethics What people really believe
4

• Some facts
• Over 10 million children die each year from
  easily preventable causes disease,
  malnutrition, bad drinking water.
• 3 million die from dehydrating diarrhea.
• Treatment a packet of oral rehydration
  salts. Cost 15 cents each.

5

• 1 million die from measles
• One effective treatment, even for kids who
  havent been vaccinated Vitamin A capsules.
  Cost 10 cents each.
• 3.5 die from pneumonia
• Treatment antibiotics Cost 25 cents each.

6
For 17 per child, UNICEF can vaccinate a child
against measles, polio, diptheria, whooping
cough, tetanus, and tuberculosis.
7
But what does it really cost to save a life? The
cost of giving a typically sick two-year-old
child in the third world a 90 chance of living
to be 21 188 Source Peter Unger, Living High
and Letting Die (New York Oxford University
Press, 1996)
8

• Two arguments that we have an extensive duty to
  help
• The Child in Front of Us and the Envelope
• Singers Argument

9

• The Child in Front of Us and the Envelope

10
The Child in Front of Us and the Envelope

1. It is wrong not to help the child in front of us.
2. There is no relevant difference between failing
   to help the child in front of us and failing to
   respond to the UNICEF plea.
3. Therefore, it is equally wrong not to respond to
   the UNICEF plea.

11
The Child in Front of Us and the Envelope

• Why the two cases seem different, even though
  theyre not
• The big psychological impact of seeing the child
  in front of us, compared with the small
  psychological impact of the envelope
• The phenomenon of grouping
• The scattering effect

12
Singers Argument

1. If we could prevent something bad from happening,
   without sacrificing anything of comparable moral
   importance, then we ought, morally, to do so.
2. It is bad for children to die from malnutrition
   or from easily preventable diseases.
3. We could prevent at least some of those deaths
   without giving up anything of comparable moral
   importance.
4. Therefore we ought, morally, to do so.

13
Objection Singers Argument demands too
much. In particular, the first premise is too
demanding. Singers reply OK, Ill change it.
14

1. If we could prevent something bad from happening,
   without sacrificing anything of comparable moral
   importance, then we ought, morally, to do so.
2. It is bad for children to die from malnutrition
   or from easily preventable diseases.
3. We could prevent at least some of those deaths
   without giving up anything of comparable moral
   importance.
4. Therefore we ought, morally, to do so.

15

1. If we could prevent something bad from happening,
   without sacrificing anything of comparable moral
   importance, then we ought, morally, to do so.
2. It is bad for children to die from malnutrition
   or from easily preventable diseases.
3. We could prevent at least some of those deaths
   without giving up anything of comparable moral
   importance.
4. Therefore we ought, morally, to do so.

16

1. If we could prevent something bad from happening,
   by sacrificing only luxuries that we dont really
   need, then we ought, morally, to do so.
2. It is bad for children to die from malnutrition
   or from easily preventable diseases.
3. We could prevent at least some of those deaths
   without giving up anything of comparable moral
   importance.
4. Therefore we ought, morally, to do so.

17

1. If we could prevent something bad from happening,
   by sacrificing only luxuries that we dont really
   need, then we ought, morally, to do so.
2. It is bad for children to die from malnutrition
   or from easily preventable diseases.
3. We could prevent at least some of those deaths
   without giving up anything of comparable moral
   importance.
4. Therefore we ought, morally, to do so.

18

1. If we could prevent something bad from happening,
   by sacrificing only luxuries that we dont really
   need, then we ought, morally, to do so.
2. It is bad for children to die from malnutrition
   or from easily preventable diseases.
3. We could prevent at least some of those deaths by
   giving up new neckties, perfume, expensive wine,
   and so on.
4. Therefore we ought, morally, to do so.

19

1. If we could prevent something bad from happening,
   by sacrificing only luxuries that we dont really
   need, then we ought, morally, to do so.
2. It is bad for children to die from malnutrition
   or from easily preventable diseases.
3. We could prevent at least some of those deaths by
   giving up new neckties, perfume, expensive wine,
   and so on.
4. Therefore we ought, morally, to do so.

20
The Six Most Common Responses to Singers Argument
21
The Six Most Common Responses 1 Oh my goodness,
children dying of starvation! Thats so
terrible, I hate even to think about it! Lets
go have lunch.
22
The Six Most Common Responses 2 Why should we
be so concerned with people in foreign countries,
when there is so much need right here at home?
23
The Six Most Common Responses 3 Why me? Other
people have a lot more money than I have.
24
The Six Most Common Responses 4 The government
should take care of it.
25
The Six Most Common Responses 5 Those so-called
relief agencies just waste our money . . .
26
U.S. Committee for UNICEF United Nations
Childrens Fund 333 East 38th Street New York, NY
10016 Oxfam America 26 West Street Boston, MA
02111
27
The Six Most Common Responses 6 The real
problem is over-population. Keeping people alive
today just creates a greater problem for tomorrow
.
28
The End
29
(No Transcript)